 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Gates3/1/2005
Heard December 8, 2004
AFFIRMED
Harlan Gates appeals his conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), alleging the trial court erred in not suppressing the evidence derived from the checkpoint in which he was stopped. We affirm.
FACTS
Gates approached a checkpoint established in the city of York and was asked to stop. While speaking with Gates, Deputy Lonnie Vinesett smelled the odor of alcohol and asked Gates to pull off to the side of the road. Deputy Vinesett asked whether Gates had been drinking and he indicated he had three or four beers. After failing three field sobriety tests, Gates was arrested for DUI. His Datamaster test indicated Gates had a blood alcohol concentration of .10.
At trial, Gates moved to suppress the results of the stop, arguing it was unconstitutional. York Police Lieutenant Thomas Jenkins testified in camera regarding the checkpoint's establishment, purpose, and procedures. Lt. Jenkins testified there were "a number of DUI's and speeding cases in that particular area," and they established the checkpoint, utilizing officers from several different departments. He testified the checkpoint was established and operated pursuant to York County policies, but each officer was operating under the policy of their particular agency when conducting the stop and any subsequent tests.
The trial court allowed the evidence into the record, indicating the checkpoint was established for a legitimate purpose, officers stopped all approaching cars, and officers investigated matters typically associated with a traffic checkpoint. Gates was convicted of DUI (second offense) and sentenced to one year imprisonment and a $5,000 fine, suspended to two days in jail and payment of a $1,000 fine with three years probation. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
"In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only. We are bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. This same standard of review applies to preliminary factual findings in determining the admissibility of certain evidence in criminal cases." State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 5-6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (internal citations omitted).
LAW/ANALYSIS
Gates contends the checkpoint violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures because: (1) the primary purpose was general crime control; and (2) the officers participating retained more discretion than is allowed. As a result, he maintains the trial court erred in failing to suppress the results of the stop. We disagree.
I. Primary Purpose
Gates asserts the primary purpose of the checkpoint was general crime control, which violates the Fourth Amendment. We disagree and find the checkpoint was established for a legitimate reason.
The Fourth Amendment requires searches and seizures be reasonable. A search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 308 (1997). The United States Supreme Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures of motorists at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road. See Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 455 (1990) (finding the State's interest in preventing drunken driving through sobriety checkpoints at which all drivers are briefly stopped advanced public safety and did not violate motorists' Fourth Amendment protections). In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663 (1979), the Court found that random, suspicionless stops to check license and registration of drivers violated
Page 1 2 3 4 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|